Scott Gordon finally gets it

[_dblagent007]

How seriously have you studied ancient Mesoamerica?

Please visit my website for quite a bit of information about "what is wrong" with Sorenson's geography.

I've spent a total of about 15 minutes at your website total. Anyone wanna provide one example of something that damns the entire theories of Sorenson and Poulson on the proposed geography? Just one specific thing.

Yeah, I agree. There is a bunch of discussion about how the LGT is now mandated by recent scientific discoveries, but I didn't see anything that really refuted Sorenson and Poulson. Perhaps Beastie could point us to the relevant material?

The rest of Beastie's arguments pretty much focused on three or four issues such horses, metallurgy, politcs & power, and I believe there was at least one more. There is a lot of information there (I especially like all the different witness accounts of the translation process), but it didn't seem to be a stake in the heart of Mormonism.

[_Jason Bourne]

Though he acknowledges it probably wouldn't help much in discussions with the person who is leaving the church, Gordon does make a valid -- and rather obvious -- point: Claiming that the church is hiding things that one found while reading church books is, well, a tad self-contradictory.

Gordon may state this but I am skeptical. I wonder what issues and what Church books he and the email correspondent is referring too? I highly doubt one will find the details of Polyandry, Adam God, Blood atonement, post manifesto polygamy, the debacle with the Kirtland Bank, the evolution of the priesthood in the early church or the details of changes in revelations from the BoC to the D&C. Can you give me examples of Church written books that lay these out?

[_harmony]

Though he acknowledges it probably wouldn't help much in discussions with the person who is leaving the church, Gordon does make a valid -- and rather obvious -- point: Claiming that the church is hiding things that one found while reading church books is, well, a tad self-contradictory.

Gordon may state this but I am skeptical. I wonder what issues and what Church books he and the email correspondent is referring too? I highly doubt one will find the details of Polyandry, Adam God, Blood atonement, post manifesto polygamy, the debacle with the Kirtland Bank, the evolution of the priesthood in the early church or the details of changes in revelations from the BoC to the D&C. Can you give me examples of Church written books that lay these out?

I want to know which manuals they're in. Just because a book's been written doesn't mean the rank and file own it and/or have read it. The manuals, though... those are the backbone of the church, even moreso than the magazines. So which manuals (seminary, Institute, Sunday School, YM/YW, Primary) have that information in them?

[_Jason Bourne]

I want to know which manuals they're in. Just because a book's been written doesn't mean the rank and file own it and/or have read it. The manuals, though... those are the backbone of the church, even moreso than the magazines. So which manuals (seminary, Institute, Sunday School, YM/YW, Primary) have that information in them?

Well this is my point. One may this in books by Quinn, or in Mormon Enigma. One may find it in RSR which is a recent item on the market. But not one Church published book that I am aware of covers any of this stuff. You want it you have to go out and find it and the official line leaves a lot of holes in order to have a faith promoting history and mythical like story.

[_harmony]

Well this is my point. One may this in books by Quinn, or in Mormon Enigma. One may find it in RSR which is a recent item on the market. But not one Church published book that I am aware of covers any of this stuff. You want it you have to go out and find it and the official line leaves a lot of holes in order to have a faith promoting history and mythical like story.

I never took seminary, YW, or Primary (converted when I was in college), so I don't know what's in those manuals. Was there any mention of those issues you just listed in the material you covered growing up, Jason?

[_bcspace]

I think you and most critics put too much on the apologist (strawman) and not the Church itself which easily bears the weight, then and now.

It may "easily bear the weight" for you, but for me it has been a case of having to ignore too much to sustain literal belief.

Ignore what?

There comes a point where you simply have to stop playing mind games with yourself.

There also comes a time when you have to delude yourself into thinking that your criticism actually means something.

[_bcspace]

Where is the argument against the Church's own claim that the Book of Mormon is historical? None such exists that would carry any scientific weight.

For me that's a bit like asking where is the argument against the geocentric model?

There is actually evidence against the geocentric model.

[_Ray A]

There also comes a time when you have to delude yourself into thinking that your criticism actually means something.

I was referring to the Hoffer quote:

It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible.

If you're happy believing six impossible things before breakfast, don't let me spoil your breaky.

[_Ray A]

There is actually evidence against the geocentric model.

Which is why I referred to the example.

[_Dr. Shades]

This is quite an admission on Scott Gordon's part.

Hopefully he--and a few of his readers--might finally grasp that people can leave the church due to reasons other than wanting to sin.